Get Company Profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, data latency). The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence followed by a usage hint. No redundancy, all information is relevant and front-loaded. It concisely covers purpose, resource, and primary data sections.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's scope and positions it among many siblings. It lists the data sections to set expectations. Lacks details on return format or pagination, but the annotations provide safety context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for 3 out of 4 parameters (75% coverage), including orgnr format and the 'fields' and 'owners' enums. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it fetches the full profile for one Norwegian company by orgnr, listing specific data sections (name, group structure, ownership, etc.). It distinguishes itself as the primary 'show me this company' tool, differentiating from siblings like firmaradar_get_company_ownership or firmaradar_get_company_financials.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'use after search_companies returns an orgnr', providing a clear when-to-use instruction. Also implies it's the go-to for a comprehensive profile, guiding the agent to prefer this over more specific tools when a broad view is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.